Posts Tagged ‘judicial activism’

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182

If you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to usurping the Constitutionally-granted Authority of the President of the United States of America.

A defiant President Donald Trump tweeted “SEE YOU IN COURT” after a San Francisco federal appeals court Thursday upheld the suspension of his controversial immigration order.

He also warned the security of the nation was at stake and said he expected to easily win the case.

Top presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway told Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days” that she could not specify if Trump meant he would take it to the Supreme Court, but there were “different options” open to the White House.

She added that the ruling “does not affect the merits at all.”

The panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously refused to reinstate the order after a federal judge had issued a halt to it last week.

But the Justice Department said it is “reviewing the decision and considering its options.” Trump later tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

He also told the White House press pool shortly after the ruling, “it’s a political decision and we’ll see them in court…it is a decision that we will win in my opinion very easily.

Asked how he learned about the decision, Trump replied, “we just saw it, just like you did.”

Trump issued the executive order, which placed a 90-day pause on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, on Jan. 27, causing chaos and outrage at airports across the country. The order also imposed a 120-day pause on all refugees, and an indefinite pause on refugees from Syria.

The case was given to the appeals court after a Seattle federal judge last week ordered a halt to Trump’s order. Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order after Washington state and Minnesota both sued.

Attorneys from the Justice Department appealed Robart’s ruling, arguing that the president’s executive power gives him the authority to place restrictions on people coming into the country.

However, the court ruling disagreed with that argument:

“In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” the court ruled.

Supporters of Trump’s order argue it will help keep America safe from terrorists looking to infiltrate the United States from terror hotspots that often have inadequate vetting procedures. Opponents have argued it is unconstitutional and discriminatory – claiming that it is a “Muslim ban” and that it has harmed individuals and businesses.

The court ruled that the government has not presented “any evidence” of a sufficient national security threat from the seven countries in question.

“…[The] Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.

The Democratic National Committee called the ruling a “massive blow to the White House.

“Let’s be clear: This is a massive blow to the White House. The court upheld that we do not discriminate based on religion. That is what terrorists do, and what terrorists want us to do,” Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union also praised the ruling.

“The government’s erratic and chaotic attempts to enforce this unconstitutional ban have taken a tremendous toll on innocent individuals, our country’s values, and our standing in the world,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Projects, said in a statement. “We will keep fighting this un-American executive order until it is permanently dismantled.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, called on Trump to abandon the order entirely.

“President Trump ought to see the handwriting on the wall that his executive order is unconstitutional. He should abandon this proposal, roll up his sleeves and come up with a real, bipartisan plan to keep us safe,” he said.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?

The great American Economist and Conservative Pundit (who just happens to be Black) Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following in a paper on the subject of Judicial Activism:

The claim that judicial activism is necessary to rescue us from bondage to the past– from having the writers of the Constitution “rule us from the grave”– defies both logic and history. There is no contest between the living and the dead. The contest is between those living individuals who wish to see control of change in judicial hands and those who wish to see it in other hands. There has been no argument that either statutory or constitutional laws are not to change. The only meaningful question is: Who is to change them? The reiterated emphasis on change, like the reiterated emphasis on morality, argues what is not at issue and glides over what is crucially at issue: Why are judges the authorized instrument? The original cognitive meaning of laws– constitutional or statutory– is important, not out of deference to the dead, but because that is the agreed‑upon meaning among the living, until they choose to make an open and explicit change– not have one foisted on them by the verbal sleight-of‑hand of judges.

Existing social philosophies and political alignments cannot be presupposed in discussions of long-run questions, such as constitutional interpretation. Even within the judiciary, differences in “substantive values” have been drastic over time, and by no means negligible even at a given time. The belief that a constitutional structure can be maintained while jurists with radically different visions make “substantive choices” within it seems dangerously similar to a belief that one can slide half-way down a slippery slope. The argument for judicial activism must stand or fall in general and enduring terms, not simply on whether some current political or social creed is considered so superior to competing creeds as to justify judges’ decisions in its favor. It is ultimately not a question of the relative merits of particular political or social creeds but of the long-run consequences of opening the floodgates to the generic principle of constitutional decisions based on “substantive values.” Once you have opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.

What must be rejected is precisely the general principle that judges’ “substantive values” should govern constitutional decisions. Nor is anything fundamentally changed by saying that judges are only agents of general moral ideas, rather than their own personal inclinations. If the Constitution does not enact Herbert Spencer’s “”A Theory of Justice”.

This action by the 9th Circuit Court proves that Liberals are more concerned about their politics than they are the safety of our nation.

And, you know what is so stupid about this whole fiasco?

The list of countries which Trump wishes to temporarily suspend immigration from , was originally compiled by the Obama Administration, as a list of countries in which “Radical Islam” (although they probably did not call it, that) is growing exponentially.

And, another thing…I asked a couple of Liberals, when the ruling was announced, if they were taking these refugees into their homes…especially the 20 something year old military-looking ones with cellphones, which were so prevalently seen in the pictures of the “Muslim Migration” that swept across Europe.

Of course, all I received was the sound of crickets in return.

In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

While the world continues its path to a possible nuclear meltdown, America’s Silent Majority continues to suffer under the oppression of a Far Left Ideology, attacking our Constitutional Freedoms in the name of “Political Correctness”.

Evangelical preacher Franklin Graham has compared the removal of Ten Commandments monuments from public property in the U.S. to the Islamic State terror group tearing down Christian symbols across the Middle East.

“We have been appalled at news reports of ISIS and the Islamic State tearing down all symbols of Christianity in the Middle East; but think about it — we’re doing it to ourselves here in the U.S. Atheists, activists, and anti-God groups like the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Military Freedom of Religion Foundation are on a quest to erase or tear down anything associated with the Name of Jesus Christ,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post on Friday.

He linked to a story by USA Today earlier this week that reported on the recent removal of the Ten Commandments granite monuments from the Oklahoma Capitol grounds.

Back in June the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 ruling that the display violated the ban on using state property to further religion.

The monument was torn down early Tuesday morning in order to avoid confrontations.

“What are these people thinking? We need God’s laws — these are the laws that have helped society flourish,” Graham said.

IS militants have posted numerous videos online depicting the destruction of Christian buildings and symbols in the territory it has captured across Iraq and Syria.

Back in March, the jihadists shared photos of the destruction of Christian crosses, statues, and icons from churches in Ninawa, Irawa, which they replaced with the group’s infamous black flag.

“The images show ISIS men engaged in the destruction of various Christian symbols, which ISIS perceives as being polytheistic and idolatrous,” the Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor said back then.

“They don’t care what it’s called; they are just following their ideology and that means getting rid of churches and minorities. It is the Islamic State, and there’s no room for anyone else,” MEMRI Director Steven Stalinsky added.

Graham further commented on his Facebook page that the removal of the Ten Commandments monument and other such instances are one of the reasons he is rolling out his “Decision America Tour,” where he will travel to all 50 states in 2016 to rally Christians to get involved politically.

“I’m going to challenge the people of God to stand for His truth and righteousness and make a difference in this nation,” Graham added.

Back in April, he explained that he’s encouraging Christians to vote based on biblical principles and to run for political office themselves.

“I want to strongly urge Christians to run for public office at every level — local, state, and federal. We will not be endorsing any political candidates, but I will be proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel in every state,” Graham said.

I have written. time and time again, about the Culture War, which is taking place in America.

Boys and Girls, it is not just a “Culture War”. We are battling a war against Government-sponsored FASCISM.

The White House hopeful reportedly said Monday evening he would still accept one of his daughters if they became a lesbian. The Texas lawmaker was the first official entrant into the 2016 election cycle.

He so far will face Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for their party’s nomination.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II, now known as D-Day.

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, Law Suits, and Judicial Activism.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court kicks the can down the road.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said the following,

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill, through Obamacare and now, through the latest threatened changes to our Gun Laws by Executive Order, every single piece of legislation has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Remember when Obama was campaigning so hard to get the Affordable Health Care Act passed?

He always used people as props for his speeches, whether it was just normal people or people dressed in white coats like doctors.

When he was previously trying to get gun control passed, he used the parents from the Newtown Massacre in Connecticut as human props to try to get his repressive agenda passed.

The use of human props is an old propaganda trick, which was used by Joseph Goebbels to make his boss Adolf Hitler seem like a man of the people who really cared about the German citizenry.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

In addition to the use of human props during a speech, another strategy used in a propaganda campaign is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

Considering what is happening in the world around us, thanks in a large part to Obama’s failed Foreign Policy, if America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

The White House hopeful reportedly said Monday evening he would still accept one of his daughters if they became a lesbian. The Texas lawmaker was the first official entrant into the 2016 election cycle.

He so far will face Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for their party’s nomination.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II, now known as D-Day.

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, and judicial activism.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court kicks the can down the road.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said the following,

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill on through the latest changes to Obamacare by Executive Order, every single piece of legislation has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Remember when Obama was campaigning so hard to get the Affordable Health Care Act passed?

He always used people as props for his speeches, whether it was just normal people or people dressed in white coats like doctors.

When he was trying to get gun control passed, he used the parents from the Newtown Massacre in Connecticut as human props to try to get his repressive agenda passed.

The use of human props is an old propaganda trick, which was used by Joseph Goebbels to make his boss Adolf Hitler seem like a man of the people who really cared about the German citizenry.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

In addition to the use of human props during a speech, another strategy used in a propaganda campaign is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

If America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Friday, my bride and I celebrated our Fifth Anniversary as husband and wife. To say that the God of Abraham has blessed me abundantly would be an understatement.

However, to say that we have not faced challenges during our life together, would be just plain silly.

Today, while we do not face the challenges to life and limb, which our ancestors faced in claiming this Sacred Land for theirs as Americans, now, more than ever, we face a changing society which has decided that “Traditional Marriage” should go the way of the dinosaur. And, the purveyors of America’s “popular culture” are using every method they can think of to make the dissolution of “one man plus one woman equals a marriage” happen.

For example, while watching one of our favorite shows on the USA Network the other night, “Royal Pains”, concerning a Concierge Doctor who treats wealthy patients in the Hamptons Resort Area in New York, I saw a commercial for a new show they will be premiering on the network.

The storyline of USA’s new drama “Satisfaction” sounds compelling: Upon discovering his wife is seeing a male escort, her husband tests the occupation as well. But the NBCUniversal-owned network will rely on much more than the program’s premise to garner viewer attention.

USA hopes to create, in a sense, a series of “trending topics” around the show, and will partner will unconventional media outlets like Vice and the HowAboutWe dating site to stir up chatter and debate around some of the issues that stand at the center of the new series.

“We have to be smarter about how we create intrigue and the desire to sample,”said Alexandra Shapiro, USA’s executive vice president of marketing and digital.

USA has commissioned a three-part docu-series with Vice, the rebellious journalism outfit that is not shy about putting its video to work for sponsors. In the series, real people will talk about how technology has changed the pursuit of romance and how the definition of commitment is changing. The series will premiere on Vice’s web site as well as on USA’s, with a new webisode set to launch with each of the first three weeks of the series. “Satisfaction” debuts Thursday, July 17 at 10 p.m. eastern on USA.

USA will in the same time span roll out a series of advertorials on dating site HowAboutWe that will tackle topics around the idea of modern love. USA will set up screening premieres with the site in Chicago, San Francisco and New York, each featuring a panel opining on the subject of modern relationships.

In addition, the network has placed billboards and ad signs in certain cities that aim to stir conversation around taboo subjects such as “Is Monogamy Realistic?”and “Is There Such A Thing As Happily Ever After?”

While USA will still run traditional promos for the new series, Shapiro cautioned that relying solely on old-school methods to try to get millions of potential viewers to tune in would be foolish.

“You want to be able to give as many people as many entry points into your franchise as possible and that’s what we are trying to do,” she said. “People are consuming media on so many platforms that if you just rely on traditional media, you are missing out on a huge population that does not consumer content in that way anymore.”

“Satisfaction” itself represents something of a break with tradition at USA. It is not a procedural drama along the lines of such popular USA fare as “Covert Affairs,” “Burn Notice” or “In Plain Sight.” And its themes are decidedly edgier and darker than previous series that embodied a sort of “blue sky” sensibility and embraced optimism and humor.

I am not naive. Far from it. For the past couple of decades, television programing has been a harbinger of American Popular Culture, providing us with programs such as “Will and Grace”, “Modern Family”, and the recently-cancelled “Two and A Half Men”.

Have you heard the expression the “one-eyed monster”? Yep. Our indoctrination by the Progressives has taken place through our wide-screen televisions every evening and on the weekends.

However, it’s not just sexual immortality that we are being bombarded with on a daily basis. It’s the acceptance of situational ethics and sexual immorality, as well.

There is a lot of pressure being put on traditional marriage nowadays. Not just from popular culture, but from the United States Government, as well, through their support of the changing of the definition of a word that has meant one thing since Genesis.

Back on June 16th, Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, even attempted to persuade a Catholic Bishop not to march in a parade supporting “Traditional Marriage”.

Can you imagine?

Traditional Marriage remains the Bedrock of our society. Without a man and a woman creating and raising children in “the way in which they should go”, a society quickly crumbles.

Thankfully, the majority of Americans still feel this way. Otherwise, why would the Obama Administration and the small vocal minority of Homosexual Marriage Supports be forced to rely on “Push Polls, political pressure, and judicial activism to overturn the decisions reached through popular vote in state after state?

Thomas Jefferson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States, said…

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

So, how did we get to where we are?

Today 76% of Americans still believe that Jesus Christ is their personal Savior. You wouldn’t know that fact from exposure to our American Media, nor from following the anti-Christian actions of our present Administration.

The problem is….man is a fallen creature. There was only one Perfect Man. We all fall short of the Glory of God.

There will be no escape for America from this downward spiral we find ourselves in, without Revival in the Land.

Just as addicts, going through the 12-step program, are told to reach out for spiritual help, so should we, as a sovereign nation, bought with the sweat and blood of our fallen, who fought for an ideal much greater than themselves, so that this Blessed Land, UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, should not perish from the face of God’s green Earth, seek the help of the God of our Fathers, to reclaim The Promise that is America.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.- Ronald Reagan

And, just as Our Creator gave us our Sacred Land, so did he give us the Sacred Bond of Marriage.

I know, as surely as I am sitting here, breathing in and out, that our marriage would not still be intact through all the challenges we have faced, and are currently facing together, if it were not for God’s Love, Grace, and Providence.

Ecclesiastes 4:12 reminds us that

And if one prevail against him (Satan), two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

And, what God has joined together, let no man (or woman) tear asunder.

If you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to striking down Popular Votes by American Citizens.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in this Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with another Government branch, that Americans need to be afraid.

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-control Administration, is to carry out the re-engineering of American Society, under the guise of “equality”?

The great American Economist and Conservative Pundit (who just happens to be Black) Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following in a paper on the subject of Judicial Activism:

The claim that judicial activism is necessary to rescue us from bondage to the past– from having the writers of the Constitution “rule us from the grave”– defies both logic and history. There is no contest between the living and the dead. The contest is between those living individuals who wish to see control of change in judicial hands and those who wish to see it in other hands. There has been no argument that either statutory or constitutional laws are not to change. The only meaningful question is: Who is to change them? The reiterated emphasis on change, like the reiterated emphasis on morality, argues what is not at issue and glides over what is crucially at issue: Why are judges the authorized instrument? The original cognitive meaning of laws– constitutional or statutory– is important, not out of deference to the dead, but because that is the agreed‑upon meaning among the living, until they choose to make an open and explicit change– not have one foisted on them by the verbal sleight-of‑hand of judges.

Existing social philosophies and political alignments cannot be presupposed in discussions of long-run questions, such as constitutional interpretation. Even within the judiciary, differences in “substantive values” have been drastic over time, and by no means negligible even at a given time. The belief that a constitutional structure can be maintained while jurists with radically different visions make “substantive choices” within it seems dangerously similar to a belief that one can slide half-way down a slippery slope. The argument for judicial activism must stand or fall in general and enduring terms, not simply on whether some current political or social creed is considered so superior to competing creeds as to justify judges’ decisions in its favor. It is ultimately not a question of the relative merits of particular political or social creeds but of the long-run consequences of opening the floodgates to the generic principle of constitutional decisions based on “substantive values.” Once you have opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.

What must be rejected is precisely the general principle that judges’ “substantive values” should govern constitutional decisions. Nor is anything fundamentally changed by saying that judges are only agents of general moral ideas, rather than their own personal inclinations. If the Constitution does not enact Herbert Spencer’s “”A Theory of Justice”.

As any American with half a brain has figured out by now, the purpose of using the Judiciary to overthrow the will of the American People who voted against “Gay Marriage” is to reinforce the notion that the average American is prejudicial is nature and, that allowing homosexuals the use of the word “marriage” is a matter of “Civil Rights”, not social re-engineering brought about by the desire of the Gay Mafia and their Progressive Supporters to redefine the American Family Unit.

Because the overwhelming majority of Americans still profess a belief in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, there was no way that Gay Activists would ever win a popular vote in the majority of American States, and fulfill their quest to have same-sex relationships classified as normal through the use of the word signifying the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

Therefore, through the usurpation of the People’s will by Activist Judges, they are succeeding in realizing the overturning of popular votes against “gay marriage” in several states.

However, if I am any judge as to the reaction of average Christian Americans, they will continue to fail in their quest for “acceptance” of their sexually deviant behavior.

Christian Americans, as shown through our overwhelming support of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, are still clinging to our traditional American Faith and Values, and no Liberal Judge, backed by a Progressive (i.e., Liberal) Government will push us off of the Solid Rock on which we stand.